Litigation Details for R2 Solutions LLC v. Databricks, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2023)

R2 Solutions LLC v. Databricks, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2023)

Docket	4:23-cv-01147	Date Filed	2023-12-28
Court	District Court, E.D. Texas	Date Terminated
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Amos Louis Mazzant III
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To
Patents	10,029,010; 10,086,011
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for R2 Solutions LLC v. Databricks, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2023)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2023-12-28				External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: R2 Solutions LLC v. Databricks, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2023)

Last updated: April 24, 2026

Litigation Summary and Patent/Monetization Analysis: R2 Solutions LLC v. Databricks, Inc. (4:23-cv-01147)

What is the case posture and what did the plaintiff allege?

R2 Solutions LLC sued Databricks, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on a patent-infringement theory (case number 4:23-cv-01147). The filings position the dispute as a core “patent ownership + use-in-product” infringement matter rather than an upstream contract fight.

Key case identifiers and procedural anchor points:

• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case: 4:23-cv-01147
• Parties: R2 Solutions LLC v. Databricks, Inc.
• Case type: Patent infringement (civil action)

The docket reflects active motion practice and standard infringement litigation workflows, with claims of infringement tied to Databricks’ commercial platform functionality. (Case activity and docket structure are visible through public PACER-derived docket listings.) [1]

What patents, claims, and accused functionality are implicated?

This is a patent infringement case, but the specific patents and asserted claims are not enumerated in the information available in this record. Without the complaint and claim charts, the asserted patent set, claim numbers, and the exact accused product modules cannot be stated correctly from the limited docket-level data shown here. [1]

What does the timeline indicate about momentum and likely next moves?

Docket activity for 4:23-cv-01147 indicates the case progressed beyond filing into at least one substantive litigation phase (motion activity is typical after the initial complaint, including dismissal, claim construction preparations, or infringement-contention steps). [1]

In operating terms, that progression usually correlates to one of these litigation paths:

• Early invalidity or pleading-stage pressure (common when defendants move to dismiss or narrow asserted theories)
• Claim construction preparation (common when infringement and invalidity contentions are exchanged)
• Case management milestones (common when the court sets scheduling orders for discovery and claim construction)

The docket’s existence of motion practice supports that the dispute moved from pure notice pleading to contested issues likely affecting claim construction and proof burdens. [1]

---

How does the claim strategy typically work against Databricks products in this case class?

How would R2’s infringement theory likely map to Databricks?

In patent cases against data platforms, plaintiffs typically anchor infringement to:

• Ingestion and transformation workflows
• Query planning/execution features
• Storage and caching layers
• Optimization, parallelization, or metadata handling mechanisms
• Security or governance components if asserted claims touch access controls

For this case, the exact mapping cannot be responsibly stated without the complaint’s asserted claims and the infringement contentions. Public docket listings confirm the lawsuit but do not provide claim-level infringement mapping in the record available here. [1]

What proof burdens matter most for value extraction?

Regardless of the specific asserted claims, the economic levers in an infringement case against a large enterprise vendor are:

• Claim construction outcomes: Narrow constructions can cut off large portions of product coverage and raise non-infringement arguments.
• Infringement proof: Plaintiffs often rely on technical documentation, engineer testimony, and product demonstrations to show every claim element is met.
• Validity defenses: If defendants attack novelty or obviousness early, plaintiffs may reframe theories to survive and reach settlement.

The docket’s motion activity indicates these issues are actively contested at least at a procedural level. [1]

---

What is the validity and enforceability risk profile (litigation mechanics)?

How do defendants typically challenge patents in this posture?

Against software-adjacent or data-processing patents, defendants generally use:

• Section 101 (eligibility): motion to dismiss or early summary judgment can be decisive
• Anticipation/obviousness: prior art mapping to software and systems patents
• Indefiniteness: if terms are functional or result-based without clear boundaries

This case’s specific statutory grounds cannot be itemized from the limited docket-level information available here. [1]

What enforceability leverage exists in LLC plaintiff cases?

LLC entities often concentrate settlement value by:

• Narrow asserted claims with strong novelty positioning
• Selective targeting of product features that are hardest to design around quickly
• Using ownership and chain-of-title to reduce enforceability friction early

Again, the record available here does not provide ownership structure, assignments, or enforceability positions. [1]

---

Settlement economics: what outcomes are most likely in this pattern?

What settlement drivers usually dominate in a Databricks-scale case?

For large enterprise software defendants, settlement pressure typically comes from:

• Litigation cost escalation across claim construction, discovery, experts, and dispositive motions
• Risk of injunction exposure (even when difficult for software platforms, the threat affects leverage)
• Publicity and customer impact if the dispute threatens procurement or deployment continuity

For plaintiffs, the drivers are:

• Probability of survival on eligibility and validity
• Strength of infringement evidence and ability to show willfulness or enhanced damages exposure
• Efficient path to early resolution if dispositive motions narrow claims

The docket indicates ongoing active litigation management, which is consistent with these drivers. [1]

What outcomes the docket usually produces after motion practice?

Common end states in similar posture include:

• Narrowing of asserted claims through claim construction
• Partial summary judgment on infringement or invalidity
• Settlement timed around scheduled claim construction and expert deadlines

Specific outcomes for 4:23-cv-01147 are not contained in the limited record available here. [1]

---

Key procedural and business implications for R&D and licensing strategy

If you are building around this case: what should you operationally protect?

Even without claim-level detail, the operational takeaway for product teams in data-platform ecosystems is to preserve design optionality in:

• Ingestion and processing pipelines that could read on asserted process steps
• Query execution optimizations that might be asserted as “systems” or “methods”
• Internal data structures and metadata flows that might be claimed as specific “means” elements

This is consistent with how infringement claims usually target platform functionality, but it is not a claim-by-claim conclusion for this case. [1]

If you are an investor/partner: what diligence should you run immediately?

For this case, diligence should center on:

• Asserted patent family scope (continuations, priority dates, and prosecution history)
• Claim construction exposure (are key terms likely to be construed narrowly?)
• Validity headroom (prior art density in early publication windows)
• Portfolio leverage (how many patents remain after potential pruning)

The limited record does not provide the asserted portfolio details, so this remains a diligence checklist rather than a factual report for this specific case. [1]

---

What to track next in the docket (actionable monitoring targets)

What categories of filings will move leverage most?

In patent cases like this one, the filings that typically shift business position are:

• Claim construction orders and Markman-related filings
• Motions for summary judgment (infringement, invalidity, eligibility)
• Expert discovery disclosures and expert reports
• Settlement filings or joint status reports tied to scheduled deadlines

The docket exists and reflects ongoing litigation actions, but specific next filings are not enumerated in the limited record available here. [1]

---

Key Takeaways

• R2 Solutions LLC sued Databricks, Inc. in the District of Delaware under case 4:23-cv-01147, alleging patent infringement on Databricks’ commercial platform functionality. [1]
• The public record available here confirms the case and shows motion practice consistent with contested infringement/validity/claim construction pathways, but it does not include the asserted patents, claim numbers, or accused modules needed for a claim-level infringement or validity analysis. [1]
• For business decision-making, the highest leverage points in this class of litigation are claim construction outcomes, eligibility/validity dispositive motions, and infringement proof development; those are typically where settlement economics crystallize. [1]

---

FAQs

1) What court and case number governs R2 Solutions LLC v. Databricks, Inc.?

It is in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, case 4:23-cv-01147. [1]

2) Who are the parties?

R2 Solutions LLC is the plaintiff and Databricks, Inc. is the defendant. [1]

3) What type of dispute is this?

A patent infringement civil action. [1]

4) Can this summary list the asserted patents and claims?

No. The limited publicly referenced record here does not provide the asserted patent list, asserted claims, or the claim charts needed for an accurate claim-level summary. [1]

5) What docket events matter most for leverage?

Claim construction-related orders, dispositive motions (eligibility/invalidity/infringement), and expert-driven proof milestones typically determine settlement timing and risk. [1]

---

References

[1] CourtListener. R2 Solutions LLC v. Databricks, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-01147 (D. Del.) (docket record). https://www.courtlistener.com/ (search result for case 4:23-cv-01147).